A voice is a vibration of the air. When you run out of the house and you say to your wife: "I will be late", she will here your voice lower because you run away. This is so called "Doppler Effect". The same effect is supposed to exist by light. We see the light of the stars that run away in its lower frequencies. The medium of the voice is air. A voice can not move if there is no air as a medium. One could speculate the same is with the light. What could be the medium of the light. Ether is abandoned for 100 years, so let it be in peace. The only “candidate” of the medium of the light is the cosmic space itself.

According to the “A-temporal Gravitation Theory” (see full story on this home page “a-temporal gravitation” ) cosmic space is build up out of quanta of space” (QS) that have a size of Planck. When we heat up the peace of iron, it will emit light, photons. One could interpret photons as a “packets of energy” that from the heated iron transmit via QS of cosmic space; photons jump from one QS to another QS and so on. Like a chain.

The speed of this “chain jumping” of the light is independent of the movement of the source and of the movement of the observer, it is the same in every inertial system. That’s the first postulate of SR: the speed of light is the same in all inertial systems.

Here it is essential to understand that light is not moving through the cosmic space, light is a “chain vibration” of QS of cosmic space and inertial systems are moving through the cosmic space. Einstein idea of a “constant speed of light” in every inertial system is more clear here. All inertial systems move through the medium and light is a vibration of the medium. According to the “Doppler Effect” we detect the light of the inertial systems (a star) that run away from us in its lover vibrations.

Light is not moving through the “space-time” that is only a mathematical construction” (see full story here “Why Mathematics Rules Physics ?”), light is a “chain vibration” of the cosmic space itself.

Light has a double particle-wave nature simultaneously. A single photon jumping from one QS to another along its trajectory is central part - particle. The central part of the photon also changes the vibration of QS around its trajectory that is its circumference part - wave.

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe a "particle part" of the photon or we can settle instruments differently and observe a "wave part" of the photon.

When we settle instruments to observe photon as a a particle, we will observe (detect) particle part of the photon, when we settle instruments to observe photon as a a wave, we will observe (detect) wave part of the photon. Scientist (Observer) should not play any role in this experiment.

yours, amrit

Zephir

28th December 2005 - 08:42 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Dec 28 2005, 11:27 AM)

light is a “chain vibration” of the cosmic space itself

If the light a “chain vibration” of something, so then it propagates like vibration. The chain mechanism is like the domino effect, isn't it?

Each vibration requires the massive environment...

Truly yours, Zephir.

amrit

28th December 2005 - 09:28 AM

Hi Zephir

Yes the idea of "domino effect" is a good example here.

The idea that electromagnetic waves are enough into themselves, that they do not need a medium is not amusing me. It feels strange (magic somehow). Relating a “wave” with a “medium” is an idea deeply routed into physics as a natural science and was somehow “up-routed” by Einstein. I think many physicists deep inside fell strange that electromagnetic waves does need a medium.

We have here some proposals. Take it or throw it, the real nature of the light will remain the same.

Into the process of scientific research there is fundamental to develop awareness that we experience the world through the ideas of our fathers and grandfathers. Nothing has to be taken for guaranteed. We have also to be aware that our way of thinking about the world determinate our experience of the world. Consciousness here is a super-useful tool.

Yes the Electromagnetic spectrum is dependant on quantum's or in laymens terms something.

Laidback

28th December 2005 - 01:02 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Dec 28 2005, 08:27 AM)

In a “double slit experiment” we can settle instruments and observe a "particle part" of the photon or we can settle instruments differently and observe a "wave part" of the photon.

yours, amrit

Basic Physics describe Light as photons or some particle which really should be discarded!

Advanced Physics describe "Light" in a far more complex manner that depends on the behavior of Atoms and their respective Valences, which further more introduces a completely different perspective and description of the Atom that describes the Proton and respective Electron bands as respective enmeshed charges or quantum's of charges that encapsulate within some proximity the Proton, further more these charges make up fields better described as a quantum because of the likely hood of distances that span as far as light years! from its origin.

The speed of propagation of Light is Dependant on this Span, where if close proximity's of Atom to Atom is realized Light is given the perception of a much slower propagation.

Of course the above Advanced Physics means Particles don't enter in the picture at all!

Particle Physics only works for Basic Physicists because a particle can be given a quantum of one and or two particles can be assigned a quantum of two, so on and so on, unfortunately there are not many advanced physicists to verify my statements. I feel so terribly alone~

Good Elf

28th December 2005 - 01:42 PM

Hi amrit,

Of course light needs a "medium" and it is the space and time itself and don't say that it is "nothing". The "shape" of the space the light is propagating in dimensionally determines the way light will propagate. If the Universe has 10 dimensions then light will propagate in them. Many people believe that light propagates in "space-time" but I think it propagates in higher dimensions in a hidden part of our universe but still part of it. Light has a wave nature that touched the space-time and does influence it slightly. The big deal is in the higher dimensions (IMHO).

Cheers

amrit

30th December 2005 - 01:38 PM

Hi Good Elf

Cosmic space is a-temporal and a-dimensional. Before mathematicians have discovered n-dimensional geometries cosmic space was experienced as three-dimensional. Everybody was sure that it is so. The ideas of n-dimensional cosmic space are born after math invented n-dimensional geometries.

If we are deeply sincere we can only say that with Euclid geometry we describe a position of an object regarding another object in a cosmic space.

With Euclid geometry we do not describe cosmic space, cosmic space itself has no dimension, it is a-dimensional and a-temporal.

Material objects have three dimensions, space in which are existing material objects is a-dimensional.

about relation math - physics see more on this home page (Why Math Rules Physics ?)

yours, amrit

fivedoughnut

30th December 2005 - 03:11 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Dec 30 2005, 01:38 PM)

Hi Good Elf

Cosmic space is a-temporal and a-dimensional. Before mathematicians have discovered n-dimensional geometries cosmic space was experienced as three-dimensional. Everybody was sure that it is so. The ideas of n-dimensional cosmic space are born after math invented n-dimensional geometries.

If we are deeply sincere we can only say that with Euclid geometry we describe a position of an object regarding another object in a cosmic space.

With Euclid geometry we do not describe cosmic space, cosmic space itself has no dimension, it is a-dimensional and a-temporal.

Material objects have three dimensions, space in which are existing material objects is a-dimensional.

about relation math - physics see more on this home page (Why Math Rules Physics ?)

yours, amrit

Amrit,

All the light you detect (even from the tip of your nose) came from the past. All what we perceive is therefore only a 3-D interpretation of 4 dimensions, merely a resultant composite of past events.

Photons in my model can be evicted/reflected from a hypertoroid. Energy from this manifold, because of its 4-D nature, before and after passing through an auto generated zerospace singularity, would enter/exit, in/out from what we term infinity (in all directions at once) @ light speed.

All the particles other than light exist as intersectional shadows of their true higher dimensional selves.

In what is termed the weak force interaction (which incidentally, I have little faith in the neutrino explainantion) I'd like to think that the conservation of energy is upheld by energy transfer to other "parallel" universes / other intersectional space.

Virtual particles may also eminate from these parallel universes into ours.

I would suggest to you that higher dimensions exist.....If only to make everything fathomable.

Zephir

30th December 2005 - 03:29 PM

The light simply HAS pronounced wave behavior, no question about it. If we are not able to detect its environment directly, it just does it mean, we are created by such environment too - that's all.

Try to bring up, for example, we are the water creatures, which are created just by the tiny water vortexes as the particles. Lets try to propose some thought experiment, which should be able to prove the existence of water for such creatures just using a underwater waves. This situation has a quite real physical meaning with respect to our vacuum.

amrit

31st December 2005 - 10:46 AM

hi fivedoughnut

light moves in space, not in time.we are born , we live and we die in the same a-temporal space.time is movement of material bodies and elementary particles in the space, time are biochemical reactions that makes us older. We are getting older in space only and not in time.

past exists only in the human mind

yours, amrit

fivedoughnut

31st December 2005 - 11:17 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Dec 31 2005, 10:46 AM)

hi fivedoughnut

light moves in space, not in time.we are born , we live and we die in the same a-temporal space.time is movement of material bodies and elementary particles in the space, time are biochemical reactions that makes us older. We are getting older in space only and not in time.

past exists only in the human mind

yours, amrit

Amrit,

What I'm just beginning to understand is that space is time. The illusion of the former is produced by the referencing of the latter in zero-space.

Just thought I'd confuse you as much as you confuse me!

Laidback

31st December 2005 - 11:52 PM

Light and how it is detected!

A changing field or force with a great spanse interacts with another field or force with a relative small spanse, the latter being an atoms field restricted by surrounding Atoms that are the makeup of your eyes, the force with a great spanse avails a rising charge or force to atoms of your eye by changing quantum or force where a Valence is increased known as an electron charge or better described as force, this force is relayed until finally it reaches the brains Atoms which are excited and processed to give a image and further more where it even may be stored as memory.

If we go back to the field that was responsible, the only quantum or force that changes is respective distance, mathematically if we have a force of one with a reference distance of one like atoms in our eye the quantum would be two, now if we increased reference distance to two we would have to divide the fields one quantum by two and if we further increase reference distance by a much larger quantum I.e. 1000 we would have to divide the one by a thousand, yeah look how the force is spread but what is important to remember is it still is the same quantum and no matter what, any quantum can still be increased and this increase gives quantum of change the same as source.

Now it should be noted that the speed of light is restricted then by the maximum distance involved and the closer the proximity of mass the slower the propagation, so therefore this implies we can calculate the closest distance that can ever be realized.

This also implies that gas, hinders propagation and liquids even more so, so on and so on, to me this suggests the greatest distance in our universe then is in the order of what light is propagated at! yeah 29~~~~~~~~~~ Klm

Why Not?

1st January 2006 - 12:49 AM

Hi amrit,

The concept of light needing a medium to travel through is the most compelling reason to seriously consider a higher dimensional universe. Math is the language of nature that scientists endeavor to decode. N-dimensional space is a discovery of mathematics, not an invention of mathematics.

fivedoughnut

1st January 2006 - 06:53 AM

QUOTE (amrit+Dec 31 2005, 10:46 AM)

past exists only in the human mind

yours, amrit

You're forgetting intelligent ET's, ET AI and suchlike.

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 12:51 AM

QUOTE (Why Not?+Jan 1 2006, 03:49 AM)

...The concept of light needing a medium to travel through is the most compelling reason to seriously consider a higher dimensional universe...

You're totally right... The light behavior can be a quite easily explained considering the quite common and realistic model od surface water wave. The light environment (Aether) plays a role of underwater in such analogy.

But such model is multidimensional by its principle at the same time, as the underwater and surface waves are spreading in different dimensions metric with respect of common energy spreading. The surface wave "knows anything" about the underwater wave's absolute motion...

And as you can see, amrit - there is no math required for understanding of such analogy. I don't know about most string theorist (... ) - by my understanding of multidimensional Universe model is solely natural and intuitive.

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 12:55 AM

QUOTE

...The concept of light needing a medium to travel through is the most compelling reason to seriously consider a higher dimensional universe...

Special relativity demands it...

There is no other way to maintain the consistancy for all observers without a bending of space...that requires multi-dimensions...

It does not require Aether...

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 01:04 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 03:55 AM)

Special relativity demands it... It does not require Aether...

Yes, but it requires the ad hoc postulate of constant light speed c= const. .... Such postulate isn't derived from any other theory, but just for well over 200 hundred years aged Mr. Faraday's experiments using a coils and wires...

The whole STR is simply based on such ad hoc assumptions, which can be easily explained by introducing of the multi-dimensional model, which is a quite common in nature, after all (the surface water wave model, in particular) by such a way, the invariance light speed presumption isn't required at all!

From the multiple dimension model perspective, the light behaves as the quite common wave of massive environment (i.e "Aether"), which simplifies the understanding of the universe by the very substantial way.

The STR is simple based on such ad hoc assumptions, which can be easily explained by introducing of the multi-dimensional model, which is a quite common in nature, after all (the surface water wave model, in particular) by such a way, the invariance light speed presumption isn't required at all!

Its not an assumption...satellites, GPS, astronomy, etc...all use c as a constant and relativity, it is REQUIRED to obtain accurate results, even in automated systems...

100 years ago, it may have been questionable, however, not today.

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 01:17 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 04:11 AM)

Its not an assumption...satellites, GPS, astronomy, etc...all use c as a constant and relativity, it is REQUIRED to obtain accurate results, even in automated systems...

Oh yeahhh - this is just a ways we are calling the "experimental reasons"..

The only one reason of the Dr. Einstein's c = const postulate are Maxwell equations, which are solely based on empirical experiments.

No question about it, you can trust me... After all, the "postulate" word alone just means the "ad hoc presumption" by its definition.

It's a purest presumption by its very nature.

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 01:29 AM

QUOTE

The only one reason of the Dr. Einstein's c = const postulate are Maxwell equations, which are solely based on empirical experiments.

After all, the "postulate" word alone just means the "ad hoc presumption" by its definition.

Do try to keep pace with the times...

It was a "postulate" over 100 years ago...it is used DAILY by a wide range of both manual and automated systems...

They won't function correctly without it.

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 01:39 AM

Well, believe or not - the reasons of c = const postulate didn't changed over the past 200 years. Even the Faraday's experiments wouldn't function correctly without it...

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 04:29 AM)

..do try to keep pace with the times....

This is why, I'm predicting the near future of physic theories here...

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 01:47 AM

QUOTE

Well, believe or not - the reasons of c = const postulate didn't changed over the past 200 years. Even the Faraday's experiments wouldn't function correctly without it...

Actually, in terms of the practical usage, a lot has changed. Thus, most of the factors behind the "c=const postulate" come from practical experiment, rather than theory.

Thus, its no longer regarded as a theory...

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 02:04 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 04:47 AM)

Thus, its no longer regarded as a theory...

The GR theories doesn't work so well, as they're incompatible with the quantum theory - this is a reason, we call a "theory" both of them...

But it can be shown easily (using a surface water model, in particular) both these theories can be connected easily just using a hidden dimension concept, which you're refuting here..

Do try to keep pace with the times...

And please, don't expect to "account for relativity at the QM level" WITHOUT the hidden dimension concept. We are using a relativistic versions of quantum mechanic equations for a long time, but with no success with respect of quantum gravity theory.

amrit

2nd January 2006 - 10:05 AM

Hi I think we have to options here:

1. the fact that the speed of light is equal in all inertial systems is a good joke of the God,

2. light is a vibration of a-temporal physical space (ATPS) in which inertial systems move

as there is no any evidence of God, I would propose the second option.

The only logical explanation for light constant speed in every inertial system is that light is a vibration of the medium in which inertial systems move.

It is really interesting that the "constant speed of light in every inertial system" that is a base of SR and GR is a prove that light is a vibration of the medium in which inertial systems move. Einsten has abondaned the ether, but somehow ether follows him also in Relativity Theory. See more in a "Morgan Manuscript" of Einstein or in article below:

..light is a vibration of a-temporal physical space (ATPS) in which inertial systems move..

If u believe to the light waves, so then you should to believe to the gravity waves too, as the light waves are just a sort of space-time waves.

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 05:28 PM

QUOTE

The GR theories doesn't work so well, as they're incompatible with the quantum theory - this is a reason, we call a "theory" both of them...

That's not true...they are compatible...there are very few people who understand both to the degree that they could integrate them.

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The GR theories doesn't work so well, as they're incompatible with the quantum theory - this is a reason, we call a "theory" both of them...

That's not true...they are compatible...there are very few people who understand both to the degree that they could integrate them.

Einsten has abondaned the ether, but somehow ether follows him also in Relativity Theory.

No Amrit, it doesn't. Aether was explicitly abandoned because it did not match any of the evidence and still does not. Einstein supported the notion of "dimensions in motion", which is NOT a "medium".

QUOTE

And please, don't expect to "account for relativity at the QM level" WITHOUT the hidden dimension concept. We are using a relativistic versions of quantum mechanic equations for a long time, but with no success with respect of quantum gravity theory

That would be because you feel that gravity is a force...it is not...you are confused because two or more aspects are combined.

"Gravity" is a phantom force...

I said this before:

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

And please, don't expect to "account for relativity at the QM level" WITHOUT the hidden dimension concept. We are using a relativistic versions of quantum mechanic equations for a long time, but with no success with respect of quantum gravity theory

That would be because you feel that gravity is a force...it is not...you are confused because two or more aspects are combined.

"Gravity" is a phantom force...

I said this before:

I do understand what you are trying to say, however, a "medium" is not required.

That is quite different from saying space is not a void, or that the shape is non-Euclidean. When you have "dimensions in motion", it would not be considered a "medium", that is, it is not required, to have a photon in the first place, such as the requirement of a medium for sound.

Sound is an "effect", a photon is part of the fundemental EM.

Aether is nonsense...it is not required, there is no evidence to support it and every piece of empirical evidence prohibits it.

Relativity demonstrates cones...

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 05:41 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 08:28 PM)

Aether was explicitly abandoned because it did not match any of the evidence and still does not.

...The ether of the general theory of relativity is transmuted conceptually into the ether of Lorentz if we substitute constants for the functions of space which describe the former, disregarding the causes which condition its state. Thus we may also say, I think, that the ether of the general theory of relativity is the outcome of the Lorentzian ether, through relativation....

...Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time.

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 08:28 PM)

..there is no evidence to support it and every piece of empirical evidence prohibits it..

For example, the fundamental STR c = const. postulate can be explained easily by the Aether presence as the wave environment.

amrit

2nd January 2006 - 05:51 PM

Hi Zephir

Ether was put on the cross and has died. Jesus has left also, so no one will resurrect ether ever.Just call it “a-temporal physical space” and you will have more success.

ATPS has a future, it is a child of the ether.

amrit

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 05:57 PM

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 2 2006, 08:51 PM)

Just call it “a-temporal physical space” and you will have more success.

It's unnecessary to develop a new terms to substitute well known and established classical therms. I have no need to develop a new words about the old theory. I'm not interested about success, I'm spreading my theory anonymously...

QUOTE (amrit+Jan 2 2006, 08:51 PM)

ATPS has a future, it is a child of the ether.

Sorry, but if you don't believe to the gravity waves, for example, your theory has nothing to do with Aether Wave Theory

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 06:00 PM

QUOTE

More careful reflection teaches us, however, that the special theory of relativity does not compel us to deny ether....

That is NOT the type of Aether that you would be aware of...In this context, Einstein is referring to "dimensions in motion" and how information can flow across the hidden dimensions, rather like a short-cut, to provide action at a distance.

It is NOT the concept of a "medium", but rather a "framework"...rather like a "fibre-optic cable", it provides a structure, but a photon can exist without it...

I work on this all the time using 10+ dimensions...

Zephir

2nd January 2006 - 06:08 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 09:00 PM)

...That is NOT the type of Aether that you would be aware of...

Of course, but it's massive and has all the properties, which Dr. Einstein attributed to Aether.

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 09:00 PM)

...it is NOT the concept of a "medium", but rather a "framework"...

It's the environment by the same way, as the underwater forms a environment for the surface water spreading.

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 2 2006, 09:00 PM)

...I work on this all the time using 10+ dimensions ...

That's great, indeed

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 06:32 PM

QUOTE

Of course, but it's massive and has all the properties, which Dr. Einstein attributed to Aether.

Einstein did not support Aether...he used the term loosely to describe certain manifestations, he felt it to be junk also, that's why it is not supported in relativity...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

Of course, but it's massive and has all the properties, which Dr. Einstein attributed to Aether.

Einstein did not support Aether...he used the term loosely to describe certain manifestations, he felt it to be junk also, that's why it is not supported in relativity...

It's the environment by the same way, as the underwater forms a environment for the surface water spreading.

Yes...the velocity of light is maintained for all observers, regardless of their velocity. The effect is used daily to correct a 12Km drift in GPS calculations. This requires the dilation of the dimension coined "Time".

This at no time prohibits the notion that the 4th dimension (Time) itself is not a representation of a number of dimensions.

It does, however, confirm that physical space is being altered during relative motion and 100 years of solid physical evidence confirms this.

Abstract: In the Theory of Relativity time is an imaginary quantity that can not be observed

Inncorrect, it can be observed through relativity, the author is looking at it from the wrong perspective.

He does not understand "Special Relativity" fully, the majority of physicist's wouldn't...in this case, however, its not important, he's going in the right direction...

He's challanging his basic notions...

QUOTE

it is a multiplication of a number that indicates duration of material change and number i that is an imaginary number. i on the square is -1. Time i ¤ t is a mathematical time that describes the speed and the duration of material change. In the Universe one can observe physical time only as a stream of material change. It is not that change run in physical time, change itself is physical time..

Again, he does not understand that these dilations manifest in reality, thus, bending physical space...it is a REAL event...observable...

Time, as defined by Einstein, is "magnitudes capable of observation", that is similar to saying "change itself is physical time".

In that sense, the author would be saying "dimensions in motion" results in time. He has just reworded Einstein...frames of reference...

That's a good lesson in semantics...

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

it is a multiplication of a number that indicates duration of material change and number i that is an imaginary number. i on the square is -1. Time i ¤ t is a mathematical time that describes the speed and the duration of material change. In the Universe one can observe physical time only as a stream of material change. It is not that change run in physical time, change itself is physical time..

Again, he does not understand that these dilations manifest in reality, thus, bending physical space...it is a REAL event...observable...

Time, as defined by Einstein, is "magnitudes capable of observation", that is similar to saying "change itself is physical time".

In that sense, the author would be saying "dimensions in motion" results in time. He has just reworded Einstein...frames of reference...

That's a good lesson in semantics...

Distinction between imaginary mathematical time and visible physical timeopens some new perspectives into interpretation of Theory of Relativity.

Yes, it allows it to be integrated with modern QM...exactly what I have been working on...

It reduces it to "physical entity" that can be correctly placed into any framework, it also does not limit it to being the effect of a single dimension...

This is where "non-linear Hyperbolic space" arises from...it removes the need for "temporal" or "time based" notions and replaces it with "distance measured space" based upon cones of information...

Essentially, I figured out a way to map this form of space and separate it from normal space...

I wish he would abandon this area and stick to the physics...he's very good...

From what I have read so far, myself and A. Sorli are expressing the identical concepts in radically different terms, forms of space and co-ordinate systems.

"A-Temporal" and "non-linear Hyperbolic space" are pretty much the same...just approached from different angles...

gonegahgah

2nd January 2006 - 11:35 PM

My analogy for light goes along the line that sound won't travel through space but a space ship will. If light is self-contained and is unlike sound - which exists as a resonance of the medium - then it will happily travel like a space ship through nothingness. A space ship doesn't need an aether to stay 'floating' in space.

I can understand your relating Einstein's space/time curvature to the 'aether' Zephir. Einstein didn't accept an aether but on the other hand said the space and time have substance as mass can cause them to curve. To me this does seem a conundrum as well.

Obviously you are saying that light resonates through an aether just like sound resonates through a solid. Light of most frequencies obviously doesn't like to vibrate through solids though as the light is blocked by them. The aether must be a gentler medium to allow light to travel through it. This despite light having a greater speed and I think possibly energy than sound. And even though the aether is a gentler medium I would still expect a minute amount of sound to vibrate through an aether; afterall it vibrates though everything else.

Laidback

2nd January 2006 - 11:47 PM

Both in Basic Particle theorem or Advanced theorem throughout the universe there is no such possibility as void!

This comes as a result of all forces are a result of other forces being applied to some equilibrium.

And the best example that there is no such void is by placing an object into a bucket of water and observing a rise of the level, if there were any void of force anywhere the objects force should infringe!

This is why we are able to measure a small charge or potential where ever in our universe suggesting no matter where a force indeed is applied.

These charges are the fields that extend from atom to atom, it is this field that rises in charge only to fall to its resting state of charge giving the seemingly result of a wave! The speed of light is Dependant on the radius or spanse of these fields.

If the spanse is small with many steps Light is hindered just like liquid would hinder its speed, but if the field has a LARGE SPANSE! in one foul swoop the field rises and falls giving us the perception of great speeds! "c" I know to some defining "c" as to {{{Charge}}} but thats how it should be!

The calculus treats it as such, "right?"

MMC

2nd January 2006 - 11:47 PM

QUOTE

can understand your relating Einstein's space/time curvature to the 'aether' Zephir. Einstein didn't accept an aether but on the other hand said the space and time have substance as mass can cause them to curve. To me this does seem a conundrum as well.

I don't see this as a conundrum...it is just that the whole theory of "Aether" does not fit the facts.

"Aether" has a set desrcription, it has been proved not to exist, therefore, it is quite obvious that this "substance-like" nature of space is something else.

Rather than "resonating", perhaps the simplist explantion is that the photon is being deformed as it passes across something that has a regular shape?

MMC

3rd January 2006 - 03:05 AM

QUOTE

Rather than "resonating", perhaps the simplist explantion is that the photon is being deformed as it passes across something that has a regular shape?

I'm thinking that there must be a fundemental reason behind wave formation. Its shape is defined by some manner and that gives rise to resonance and interaction at a distance.

Have you ever seen the effect water has on the sand at the beach?

I'm wondering would space be effected in a similar manner, only carved up into cones...?

Zephir

3rd January 2006 - 06:34 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 06:05 AM)

..I'm thinking that there must be a fundemental reason behind wave formation...

The wave equation is just the Newton inertia law in it's local form.

It means, all waves can be explained as the manifestation of the energy exchange at some massive environment. The surfer waves and it's symmetry breaking is the result of the relativistic time dilatation at the space-time formed by the water surface.

On the other hand, the gravity or light waves are just the manifestation of inertia properties of massive Aether environment.

MMC

3rd January 2006 - 07:05 AM

QUOTE

The wave equation is just the Newton inertia law in it's local form.

It doesn't explain the shape...why a wave?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The wave equation is just the Newton inertia law in it's local form.

It doesn't explain the shape...why a wave?

It means, all waves can be explained as the manifestation of the energy exchange at some massive environment. The surfer waves and it's symmetry breaking is the result of the relativistic time dilatation at the space-time formed by the water surface.

Again, it expalins the action of a wave, however, not why it is a wave especially in relation to a photon...

QUOTE

On the other hand, the gravity or light waves are just the manifestation of inertia properties of massive Aether environment.

A resonance within substance...

The point where we differ becomes clear, the Aether lobby feels that this is one single substance, another lobby feel it is a void and a third lobby, including myself, feel it to be the result of compressed aspects of yet unknown dimension or layers...

Zephir

3rd January 2006 - 07:22 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 10:05 AM)

It doesn't explain the shape...why a wave?

Because the integration solution of the Newton inertia + energy conservation laws leads to the harmonic solution, which can be described by the Fourier goniometric functions composition. It's pure math.

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 10:05 AM)

..why it is a wave especially in relation to a photon..

If the universe is formed by the waves, all derived phenomena can be described just using waves. No other "shapes" can occur here, as the composition of waves gives just a new waves (well, "a resonance within substance"...). You needn't to think about the nature of photon, electron, atom orbital and so on. All they've wave origin and behavior.

The superstring thery by it's very nature.

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 10:05 AM)

..The point where we differ becomes clear, the Aether lobby feels that this is one single substance, another lobby feel it is a void and a third lobby, including myself, feel it to be the result of compressed aspects of yet unknown dimension or layers... .

Nope, the Aether isn't single substance, it's the environment recursivelly formed by the harmonic wave composition. But such environment behaves as the massive, exhibiting an inertia at all levels. The void model is the very simple and most primitive one, it can be usefull extrapolation in most practical situations, but from the theoretical point of view it can explain nothing, the c=const postulate at the first line.

MMC

3rd January 2006 - 07:54 AM

QUOTE

Nope, the Aether isn't single substance, it's the environment recursivelly formed by the harmonic wave composition. But such environment behaves as the massive, exhibiting an inertia at all levels.

That's pretty much a description of an EM lattice...

In addition to this, I would be examining the underlying space inside this lattice...

Zephir

3rd January 2006 - 09:17 AM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 10:54 AM)

QUOTE

Nope, the Aether isn't single substance, it's the environment recursively formed by the harmonic wave composition. But such environment behaves as the massive, exhibiting an inertia at all levels.

That's pretty much a description of an EM lattice...

In addition to this, I would be examining the underlying space inside this lattice...

The QM models ale solely based to the massive environment model, in fact. such homogeneous environment can be modeled as the system of mutually repulsive massive points, exhibiting inertia. The sum of potential and kinetic energy of such system corresponds the QM wave function.

Does it means, the vacuum is formed from massive particles? Yes and not, as the Abelian deformation of space can be explained as the result of composition of multidimensional waves, the wave pockets of it behaves like the massive particles (so called Higgs bosons). But it can be shown using a general relativity, all highly energetic deformation of space behaves like massive particle exhibiting gravitational field, it's a solely geometrodynamic effect of high intensity gravity waves. In general, I don't like a particle models too much, as they usually brings a more questions, then answers (e.g. how looks the inner topology of particle?, what's the difference between inside of particle and outside environment?, what's shape and diameter of it? etc, etc)..

It seems, the particle model is always just a certain antropomorhic extrapolation of reality, being more pronounced at the higher energy scales, which are common in everydays nature.

gonegahgah

3rd January 2006 - 10:04 AM

MMC

The conundrum is that mass interacts with space/time causing it to curve but that that space/time doesn't interact back. Instead the curved space/time only interacts with other masses passing by.

Obviously the big killer for the aether theory has been the expectation of an aether wind as a result of things travelling fast through the aether. We of course have never found any evidence of such a wind existing.

But this doesn't discount the idea of thinking of space/time curvature as a different sort of aether with different rules. Such as the ones I described at the top.

However the conundrum is that the interaction between mass and space/time is of a strange nature. Normally if you have a tub of water and you spin something in the water the water will fight back. But not so with space/time. Spin a planet in space/time and the planet changes the shape of the space/time but space/time does not slow down the planet. It does not by even a small amount nor by an even larger amount one would think would be suggested by the amount of space/time frame dragging that occurs.

So space/time applies no drag to the immediate mass but - now wait it gets even more interesting now - it does apply an interactive effect to passing mass due to the reshaping of that space/time by the immediate mass.

This one directional behaviour is very strange behaviour for anything.

Now you may like to say that it does not effect the passing mass and instead just changes the shape and duration of space that the mass passes through. But you can not say that. If it has some effect on passing masses (ie changes their path and speed in some way) then it has an 'effect'.

So in otherwords space/time does not effect the immediate mass. No it only effects masses that are passing by. Also it only does so because that space/time is curved by the immediate mass which interacts with the space/time in a one way process.

ie. mass --curves--> space/time --redirects/respeeds--> passing mass

I can't think of many other one way interactions in nature.

And due to this interactive nature - albiet in one direction - I can fully understand Zephir's desire for an aether cum space/time to be one and the same thing under those circumstances.

Zephir

3rd January 2006 - 11:10 AM

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jan 3 2006, 01:04 PM)

But this doesn't discount the idea of thinking of space/time curvature as a different sort of aether with different rules.

From historical point od view, the Aether was always some kind of massive environment, transferring wave energy. Different definition of Aether has the rather artifically modified properties with respect of light and mass movement, for example luminiferous Aether, thus weakening the strong original concept by such way.

In the nature a two basic kinds of massive environment can be observed - the wind as the environment for the bulk sound waves and the water or elastic matter as the environment for the surface or transversal waves.

It seems, it's rather irrational to throw such the strong idea just because of principial experimental mistake/inconsistency of relativistic physic, which is not using a waves for determination of its speed in elastic environments, whereas the light waves are used for determination of light speed exclusively.

This is not a mistake of Aether theory, but fundamental inconsistency in experimental arrangement for it's confirmation/disprovement. Even the little child can observe some relativistic effect at the water surface by the naked eye - so there is no need to keep ad hoc concepts and believes. Whereas the Aether concept is a quite common in nature the artificial quantum/relativity theories and the ad hoc postulates should be replaced by it gradually in textbooks. Here is no need to keep two different inconsistent descriptions for the wave environment of water and vacuum.

QUOTE (gonegahgah+Jan 3 2006, 01:04 PM)

We of course have never found any evidence of such a wind existing.

It's no so true so far, as the results of for example WMAP experiments exhibits the pronounced absolute motion effects across the space. Such absolute motion is represented by the irregular energy flow coming from different directions.

Laidback

3rd January 2006 - 11:18 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 3 2006, 07:05 AM)

QUOTE

The wave equation is just the Newton inertia law in it's local form.

It doesn't explain the shape...why a wave?

QUOTE (->

QUOTE

The wave equation is just the Newton inertia law in it's local form.

It doesn't explain the shape...why a wave?

It means, all waves can be explained as the manifestation of the energy exchange at some massive environment. The surfer waves and it's symmetry breaking is the result of the relativistic time dilatation at the space-time formed by the water surface.

Again, it expalins the action of a wave, however, not why it is a wave especially in relation to a photon...

QUOTE

On the other hand, the gravity or light waves are just the manifestation of inertia properties of massive Aether environment.

A resonance within substance...

The point where we differ becomes clear, the Aether lobby feels that this is one single substance, another lobby feel it is a void and a third lobby, including myself, feel it to be the result of compressed aspects of yet unknown dimension or layers...

Let me interject and give reference which by the looks of things every one here needs to research a hell of a lot more.

Permittivity and its relationship to permeability of free Space

If you delve into the above calculus you should note that free space is subject to a constant this constant represents a constant charge of free space and the makeup of this charge is from the Fields of every Atoms extension to another Atoms.

These fields are compressed when large masses of close proximity are involved but out in free space their forces are almost at Unity, another clue to our universe being a closed system BTW, The point is - even though the charge in these Fields is small, if a change of charge is exchanged each area of exchange of charge rises and falls!

The easiest way to catch on roughly how a wave is realized is by drawing three circles starting by a smaller circle to represent a field at rest the next circle we draw the circle larger to represent peak charge, "The photonic state" "maximum mass" or "Maximum peek charge" the middle circle has received a certain charge to which it should be passing on the charge, This can be represented by swapping the last two circles around!. Now imagine these circles represent three fields that span 900000000 Km

lets now imagine three compressed fields like in a liquid where the distance of the fields are only .00000009 mm the charge is still exchanged at the same rate of time! but because the fields are smaller its gonna take a lot longer than in free space where the fields span much greater distances!.

BTW if we sum all the fields in the universe up - and then sum them to the sum of all Atoms it would give us the finite quantum of the Universe.

MMC

4th January 2006 - 03:59 PM

QUOTE

The conundrum is that mass interacts with space/time causing it to curve but that that space/time doesn't interact back

I don't see this as a conundrum either....

The model I have been working on attributes mass to a compressed dimension within space-time, that is exposed through the Higg's mechanism.

The curvature would be meeting of these planes...

gonegahgah

5th January 2006 - 11:46 AM

MMC

You don't have to see the conundrum if that is your choice.

Even if the Earth were a hundred dimensional object it would still interact with other things in our hundred dimension universe. And interactions tend to be two way affairs.

So if it is not interacting with other mass directly then it must be interacting with something. And that thing that it is interacting with should be interacting back.

If you have two equal size moons and you prevent one from falling towards the other then the free moving one will move only as fast as free fall dictates towards the anchored moon. But if you let both fall towards each other the rate of acceleration will be exponentially faster (because they get closer) as they both interact with each other without an interfering force (the anchor).

Correspondingly if mass is and interacts with space-time in whatever dimension, be it our 3 or some - well pick a dimension - then there is likely to be reverse interaction between space time and our mass.

Like it or lump it, interactions tend to be two directional.

We can't just chuck out "for every reaction there is an equal and opposite reaction" that easily can we?

Perhaps you kind of agree with the aetherists in a round about way and see mass as just sink holes (or whirlpools when the mass spins) in an aether which lies in another dimension other than our three where that aether is able to continually regenerate itself at the areas of least mass. Is this your theory?

Confused2

5th January 2006 - 08:19 PM

QUOTE

gonegahgahSo if it is not interacting with other mass directly then it must be interacting with something. And that thing that it is interacting with should be interacting back.

Possibly the answer is that your curve normally just follows you around. If you try to accelerate in any way then you interact. That F = m a business is you interacting with your personal curved space.

I hope this helps.

-C2

Laidback

5th January 2006 - 11:40 PM

QUOTE (MMC+Jan 4 2006, 03:59 PM)

QUOTE

The conundrum is that mass interacts with space/time causing it to curve but that that space/time doesn't interact back

I don't see this as a conundrum either....

The model I have been working on attributes mass to a compressed dimension within space-time, that is exposed through the Higg's mechanism.

The curvature would be meeting of these planes...

Hey there MMC,

With respects to your Model that you are working with is that there are a lot of good indicators in the current dimensions we are aware of.

Just two are the interactions between two magnetic fields, in where the closer they are in proximity the stronger the opposing forces.

The other indicator is Black Holes and the suggestion our part of the Universe is in one mother of a Black Hole...

Us in a Black Hole?

Consider what we should be detecting if we were being compressed or better yet as current knowledge suggests, Our mass is availing to time, what I mean by that is all energy is being exchanged to time - keeping in mind that every thing is merely made up of a charge or energy and really Time should be seen as just another energy exchange, and if we do the calculus the less local mass the slower this exchange is realized, this already has been proven.

For quite some time this was speculated and since Space Flight it was proven this is indeed the case... Reference NASA for more about Mass and Time rates.

Getting back to black holes if we imagine the following in where all the mass as it moves closer to the apex is still just the same mass that has availed itself to Time and therefore avails energy exchanges at a much slower rate to time..

The closer mass is to the Apex the smaller it is, the smaller the mass the less there is to avail to time.

If we consider a Black Hole as a single individual mass we can clearly see why two magnetic fields oppose with force the closer the proximity..

Imagine if we had the means to place two Black Holes together, calculus suggests the more we try and enmesh them the stronger the opposing forces because more and more mass is involved.. and more and more time is needed to force them together.

PhysOrg scientific forums are totally dedicated to science, physics, and technology. Besides topical forums such as nanotechnology, quantum physics, silicon and III-V technology, applied physics, materials, space and others, you can also join our news and publications discussions. We also provide an off-topic forum category. If you need specific help on a scientific problem or have a question related to physics or technology, visit the PhysOrg Forums. Here you’ll find experts from various fields online every day.

To quit out of "lo-fi" mode and return to the regular forums, please click here.